BAPTISM.
When the venerable Polycarp was on the eve of martyrdom, he is reported
to have said that he had served Christ "eighty and six years." [472:1]
By the ancient Church these words seem to have been regarded as
tantamount to a declaration of the length of his life, and as implying
that he had been a disciple of the Saviour from his infancy. [472:2] The
account of his martyrdom indicates that he was still in the enjoyment of
a green old age, [472:3] and as very few overpass the term of fourscore
years and six, we are certainly not at liberty to infer, without any
evidence, and in the face of probabilities, that he had now attained a
greater longevity. A contemporary father, who wrote about the middle of
the second century, informs us, that there were then many persons of
both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years of age, who had been
"disciples of Christ from childhood," [472:4] and the pastor of Smyrna
is apparently included in the description. If he was eighty-six at the
time of his death, he must have been about threescore and ten when
Justin Martyr made this announcement.
No one could have been considered a disciple of Jesus who had not
received baptism, and it thus appears that there were many aged persons,
living about A.D. 150, to whom, when children, the ordinance had been
administered. We may infer, also, that Polycarp, when an infant, had
been in this way admitted within the pale of visible Christianity.
Infant baptism must, therefore, have been an institution of the age of
the apostles. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that Justin
Martyr speaks of baptism as supplying the place of circumcision. "We,"
says he, "who through Christ have access to God, have not received that
circumcision which is in the flesh, but that spiritual circumcision
which Enoch, and others like him, observed. And this, because we have
been sinners, we do, through the mercy of God, receive _by baptism_."
[473:1] Justin would scarcely have represented the initiatory ordinance
of the Christian Church as supplying so efficiently the place of the
Jewish rite, had it not been of equally extensive application. The
testimony of Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, throws additional light
upon this argument. "Christ," says he, "came to save all persons by
Himself; all, I say, who _by Him are regenerated unto God_--infants, and
little ones, and children, and youths, and aged persons: therefore He
went through the several ages, being made an infant for infants, that He
might _sanctify infants_; [473:2] and, for little ones, He was made a
little one, to sanctify them of that age also." [473:3] Irenaeus
elsewhere speaks of baptism as _our regeneration_ or _new birth unto
God_, [473:4] so that his meaning in this passage cannot well be
disputed. He was born on the confines of the apostolic age, and when he
mentions the _regeneration unto God_ of "infants, and little ones, and
children," he alludes to their admission by baptism to the seal of
salvation.
The celebrated Origen was born about A.D. 185, and we have as strong
circumstantial evidence as we could well desire that he was baptized in
infancy. [474:1] Both his parents were Christians, and as soon as he was
capable of receiving instruction, he began to enjoy the advantages of a
pious education. He affirms, not only that the practice of infant
baptism prevailed in his own age, but that it had been handed down as an
ecclesiastical ordinance from the first century. "None," says he, "is
free from pollution, though his life upon the earth be but the length of
one day, and for this reason even infants are baptized, because by the
sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is put away." [474:2]
"The Church has received the custom of baptizing little children _from
the apostles_." [474:3]
The only writer of the first three centuries who questions the propriety
of infant baptism is Tertullian. The passage in which he expounds his
views on this subject is a most transparent specimen of special
pleading, and the extravagant recommendations it contains sufficiently
attest that he had taken up a false position. "Considering," says he,
"every one's condition and disposition, and also his age, the delay of
baptism is more advantageous, but especially in the case of little
children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into
danger? Because they may fail to fulfil their promises by death, or may
be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked disposition. Our Lord
says indeed--'Do not forbid them to come unto me.' Let them come,
therefore, whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are
learning, whilst they are being taught where it is they are coming, let
them be made Christians when they are capable of knowing Christ. Why
should their innocent age make haste to the remission of sins? Men
proceed more cautiously in worldly things; and he that is not trusted
with earthly goods, why should he be trusted with divine? Let them know
how to ask salvation, that you may appear to give it to one that asketh.
For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be delayed, because they
are exposed to temptations, as well virgins that are come to maturity,
as those that are in widowhood and have little occupation, until they
either marry or be confirmed in continence. They who know the weight of
baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement." [475:1]
In the apostolic age all adults, when admitted to baptism, answered for
themselves. Had additional sponsors been required for the three thousand
converts who joined the Church on the day of Pentecost, [475:2] they
could not have been procured. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian
jailor [475:3] were their own sponsors. Until long after the time when
Tertullian wrote, there were, in the case of adults, no other sponsors
than the parties themselves. But when an infant was dedicated to God in
baptism, the parents were required to make a profession of the faith,
and to undertake to train up their little one in the way of
righteousness. [476:1] It is to this arrangement that Tertullian refers
when he says--"What necessity is there that _the sponsors_ be brought
into danger? Because even they may fail to fulfil their promises by
death, or may be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked
disposition."
It is plain, from his own statements, that infant baptism was practised
in the days of this father; and it is also obvious that it was then said
to rest on the authority of the New Testament. Its advocates, he
alleges, quoted in its defence the words of our Saviour--"Suffer the
little children to come unto me and forbid them not." [476:2] And how
does Tertullian meet this argument? Does he venture to say that it is
contradicted by any other Scripture testimony? Does he pretend to assert
that the appearance of parents, as sponsors for their children, is an
ecclesiastical innovation? Had this acute and learned controversialist
been prepared to encounter infant baptism on such grounds, he would not
have neglected his opportunity. But, instead of pursuing such a line of
reasoning, he merely exhibits his weakness by resorting to a piece of
miserable sophistry. When our Lord said--"Suffer the little children to
come unto me and forbid them not," He illustrated His meaning as He
"took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them;"
[476:3] so that the gloss of Tertullian--"Let them come _whilst they
are growing up_, let them come whilst they are learning"--is a palpable
misinterpretation. Nor is this all. The Carthaginian father must have
known that there were frequent instances in the days of the apostles of
the baptism of whole households; and yet he maintains that the
unmarried, especially young widows, cannot with safety be admitted to
the ordinance. Had he been with Paul and Silas at Philippi he would thus
scarcely have consented to the baptism of Lydia; and he would certainly
have protested against the administration of the rite to all the members
of her family. [477:1]
Though Tertullian may not have formally separated from the Church when
he wrote the tract in which this passage occurs, it is evident that he
had already adopted the principles of the Montanists. These errorists
held that any one who had fallen into heinous sin after baptism could
never again be admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship; and this little
book itself supplies proof that its author now supported the same
doctrine. He here declares that the man "who renews his sins after
baptism" is "destined to fire;" and he intimates that martyrdom, or "the
baptism of blood," can alone "restore" such an offender. [477:2] It was
obviously the policy of the Montanists to discourage infant baptism, and
to retain the mass of their adherents, as long as possible, in the
condition of catechumens. Hence Tertullian here asserts that "they who
know the weight of baptism will rather _dread its attainment_ than its
postponement." [477:3] But neither the apostles, nor the early Church,
had any sympathy with such a sentiment. They represent baptism as a
privilege--as a sign and seal of God's favour--which all should
thankfully embrace. On the very day on which Peter denounced the Jews as
having with wicked hands crucified his Master, he assisted in the
baptism of three thousand of these transgressors. "Repent," says he,
"and _be baptized every one of you_ in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, _for
the promise is unto you and to your children_." [478:1] Tertullian would
have given them no such encouragement. But the Montanists believed that
their Phrygian Paraclete was commissioned to supersede the apostolic
discipline. When the African father attacked infant baptism he obviously
acted under this conviction; and whilst seeking to set aside the
arrangements of the Church of his own age, he felt no scruple in
venturing at the same time to subvert an institute of primitive
Christianity.
We have the clearest evidence that, little more than twenty years after
the death of Tertullian, the whole Church of Africa recognised the
propriety of this practice. About the middle of the third century a
bishop of that country, named Fidus, appears to have taken up the idea
that, when administering the ordinance, he was bound to adhere to the
very letter of the law relative to circumcision, [478:2] and that
therefore he was not at liberty to baptize the child before the eighth
day after its birth. When the case was submitted to Cyprian and an
African Synod, consisting of sixty-six bishops, they _unanimously_
decided that these scruples were groundless; and, in an epistle
addressed to the pastor who entertained them, the Assembly thus
communicated the result of its deliberations--"As regards the case of
infants who, you say, should not be baptized within the second or third
day after their birth, and that respect should be had to the law of the
ancient circumcision, whence you think that one newly born should not be
baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all in our council
thought very differently.... If even to the most grievous offenders, ...
when they afterwards believe, remission of sins is granted, and no one
is debarred from baptism and grace, how much more ought not an infant to
be debarred who, being newly born, has in no way sinned, except that
being born after Adam in the flesh, he has by his first birth contracted
the contagion of the old death; who is on this very account more easily
admitted to receive remission of sins, in that, not his own, but
another's sins are remitted to him." [479:1]
Whilst it is thus apparent that the baptism of infants was the
established order of the Church, it is equally clear that the particular
mode of administration was not considered essential to the validity of
the ordinance. It was usually dispensed by immersion or affusion,
[479:2] but when the health of the candidate might have been injured by
such an ordeal, sprinkling was deemed sufficient. Aspersion was commonly
employed in the case of the sick, and was known by the designation of
_clinic_ or _bed_ baptism. Cyprian points out to one of his
correspondents the absurdity of the idea that the extent to which the
water is applied can affect the character of the institution. "In the
saving sacrament," says he, "the contagion of sin is not washed away
just in the same way as is the filth of the skin and body in the
ordinary ablution of the flesh, so that there should be need of
saltpetre and other appliances, and a bath and a pool in which the poor
body may be washed and cleansed.... It is apparent that the _sprinkling_
of water has like force with the saving washing, and that when this is
done in the Church, where the faith both of the giver and receiver is
entire, [480:1] all holds good and is consummated and perfected by the
power of the Lord, and the truth of faith." [480:2]
Cyprian is here perfectly right in maintaining that the essence of
baptism does not consist in the way in which the water is administered;
but much of the language he employs in speaking of this ordinance cannot
be commended as sober and scriptural. He often confounds it with
regeneration, and expresses himself as if the mere rite possessed a
mystic virtue. "The birth of Christians," says he, "is in baptism."
[480:3] "The Church alone has the life-giving water." [480:4] "The water
must first be cleansed and sanctified by the priest, that it may be
able, by baptism therein, to wash away the sins of the baptized."
[480:5] Tertullian and other writers of the third century make use of
phraseology equally unguarded. [480:6] When the true character of the
institute was so far misunderstood, it is not extraordinary that it
began to be tricked out in the trappings of superstition. The candidate,
as early as the third century, was exorcised before baptism, with a view
to the expulsion of evil spirits; [480:7] and, in some places, after the
application of the water, when the kiss of peace was given to him, a
mixture of milk and honey was administered, [480:8] He was then
anointed, and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross. [480:9]
Finally, the presiding minister, by the laying on of hands, bestowed the
benediction. [480:10] Tertullian endeavours to explain some of these
ceremonies. "The flesh," says he, "is washed, that the soul may be freed
from spots; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the
flesh is marked (with the sign of the cross), that the soul may be
guarded; the flesh is overshadowed by the imposition of hands, that the
soul may be enlightened by the Spirit." [481:1]
It is not improbable that the baptismal service constituted the first
germ of a Church liturgy. As the ordinance was so frequently celebrated,
it was found convenient to adhere to the same form, not only in the
words of administration, [481:2] but also in the accompanying prayers;
and thus each pastor soon had his own baptismal office. But when
heresies spread, and when, in consequence, measures were taken to
preserve the unity of the Catholic faith, a uniform series of
questions--prepared, perhaps, by councils and adopted by the several
ministers--was addressed to all catechumens. Thus, the baptismal
services were gradually assimilated; and, as the power of the hierarchy
increased, one general office, in each district, superseded all the
previously-existing formularies.
Baptism, as dispensed in apostolic simplicity, is a most significant
ordinance; but the original rite was soon well-nigh hidden behind the
rubbish of human inventions. The milk and honey, the unction, the
crossing, the kiss of peace, and the imposition of hands, were all
designed to render it more imposing; and, still farther to deepen the
impression, it was already administered in the presence of none save
those who had themselves been thus initiated. [481:3] But the
foolishness of God is wiser than man. Nothing is more to be deprecated
than any attempt to improve upon the institutions of Christ. Baptism, as
established by the Divine Founder of our religion, is a visible
exhibition of the gospel; but, as known in the third century, it had
much of the character of one of the heathen mysteries. It was intended
to confirm faith: but it was now contributing to foster superstition.
How soon had the gold become dim, and the most fine gold been changed!